The pursuer presented well in the witness box and I have no difficulty in accepting her as a credible and reliable witness.вЂќ In his decision, Sheriff Hughes said of the evidence: вЂњI have no doubt whatsoever that the parties made the agreement described by the pursuer in her evidence. The agreement between the parties was for transfer of title, not for sale, and it was вЂњincredibleвЂќ that an experienced businesswoman such as the pursuer would pay ВЈ140,000 over several years for a piece of land without fully investigating the reasons for any delays in the process with her lawyer. In relation to the embezzlement, it was submitted that the evidence of the pursuer that the defender was only authorised to use the account for nominated purposes should be accepted.Д¬ounsel for the defender submitted that his evidence ought to be preferred over that of the pursuer and her witnesses. The pursuerвЂ™s case was also said to meet the conditions for вЂњMelville monument liabilityвЂќ in that monies had been advanced on the implied assurance of a binding contract. It was submitted for the pursuer that the parties had an informal, binding contract for the sale of the land, or failing that she had a case in unjustified enrichment. In addition to these funds, the pursuer claimed that the defender took over ВЈ56,000 from her account without her consent. The pursuer paid the funds to the defender over several instalments from 2010 to 2015, however title to the land was never transferred to her.Дuring their relationship, the defender was given access to the bank account the pursuer operated in respect of a shop she owned in Scotland in order to pay contractors for work on her Scottish properties. By this time, the pursuer and defender had entered a romantic relationship which lasted until 2015. It was agreed by the parties that, rather than accept this offer, the pursuer would purchase the plot for ВЈ140,000 and thereafter build a house on it. This house was to be sold and the proceeds divided between them, avoiding capital gains tax due to GraemeвЂ™s expatriate status.ДЄfter plans for that development fell through, another party expressed interest in buying the plot. After they met, the three made an agreement whereby the defender would convey a plot of land he owned near Argyll to his brother for a house designed by him to be built on it at the expense of his brother and the pursuer. The pursuer and the defender met in 2006 through the latterвЂ™s older brother Graeme, who also lived in Dubai. Michael Upton, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Wojciech Jajdelski, advocate, appeared for the defender. The case was heard by Sheriff Patrick Hughes in Oban Sheriff Court. In addition, she sought repayment of funds she claimed the defender had embezzled from a business bank account that she had made him a signatory to. Lorraine Ludman, a Scot living and working in Dubai, argued she and the defender, Andrew McIlvride, an architectural illustrator, had made an informal but binding contract for the transfer of funds in exchange for the land. A sheriff in Oban has ruled that a man who persuaded his former romantic partner to pay him ВЈ140,000 for a plot of land she never received was liable to repay her the whole sum following his failure to convey title.

Incredible legal remedy